memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Memory Alpha:Category suggestions
=Provisional categories= * Category talk:Slang * Category talk:Terminology These categories are rather loose in concept and could use further refining, retooling or renaming. Any discussion, or revival of previous discussions on these matters would be gratefully appreciate! --Alan 03:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC) =Suggested categories= In-universe categories Starship classes move Move all Category:Starship classes to Category:Spacecraft classes, or if we feel so inclined, "spacecraft types" vs. "classes." This applies to the subcategories, and is based on changes implemented at Category talk:Spacecraft. This move is based on the analysis that not all vessel classes listed in "starship classes" are starship classes... While making this move, it would probably be a good idea to create a new subcategory for Category:Federation starship classes, nay, Category:Federation spacecraft classes called Category:Federation shuttle classes (or "types") as there are several. --Alan 21:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC) * I don't see a problem creating separate classes for spacecraft classes and types. I'm not sure if it's entirely necessary, though. "Spacecraft classes" doesn't sound very good, though... maybe "ship classes"? Eh, then I'd guess we'd have to include non-starfaring ships. Anyway, I support the cat move and creation of the sub-cat. --From Andoria with Love 21:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC) * I like "ship classes", and if there are not starfaring ships in that list, we can break them into a separate sub-category quite easily. -- Sulfur 02:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC) Category:Religious leaders Based on my examples in the nomination for the Category:Religious figures, I think what I really meant for that category to be was for feared or revered gods, and prophets, angels, and other Biblical (or related text) figures, not Kai Winn or Jimmy Swaggert. I think something like Category:Religious leaders might be a good division point. --Alan del Beccio 21:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC) : So, let me get this straight... "figures" would be for gods, angels, etc. Leaders for those who lead churches (ie, the pope, etc...). What about various Vedeks? Would they fall into that category? If so, I can see that being useful. We could even possibly break them off into a subcategory of "Bajoran Religious Leaders" -- Sulfur 02:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC) Basically. The term "church leader" can be used to describe your local "priest", "pastor" or whatever else isnt coming to mind at the moment, like I often hear on the news, "Such and such local religious leaders did this or that today...". --Alan del Beccio 23:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC) Security and identification technology Two categories, similar topic: I've noticed several articles, many uncategorized, all on a related topic, including thumbscan, retinal scan, identification card, identity tape, authorization code, security clearance, ration card, transport card, transit pass, chess code, and I'm sure there are others. Since these are all security related concepts, perhaps broaden this idea and make identification a sub-category of a larger Security technology, for stuff like listening devices and so forth. --Alan del Beccio 21:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC) * Works for me. I can see a top level "Security" with an "ID technology" sub-category. -- Sulfur 02:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC) * Yep, me too. -- Renegade54 14:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC) Events, missions, projects and expeditions We have several events, missions, projects and expeditions, but I cannot think of a unilateral term to encompass them all. Here is the list, compiled from : Arias Expedition, Axanar Peace Mission, Bolian Operation, Fornax Disaster, Great Diaspora, Operation Lovely Angel, Operation Retrieve, Operation Watson, Pathfinder Project, Particle Fountain Project, shakedown cruise, Vulcan reunification, Vulcanian expedition, Xindi reunification. --Alan del Beccio 21:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC) *Good call, but I have no idea on a single name, either. Maybe the items you list are still too diverse to be listed under one category? "Mission" could probably encompass all those "Operations", but "Project"? Not sure... -- Cid Highwind 00:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC) *I like this, too, but don't know what to call it either. -- Renegade54 14:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC) *I like this idea as well, perhaps calling it "Events"? Perhaps the category of Military Conflicts should be a subcategory of it, or at least this new category should be clearly defined as being nonmilitary.--31dot 15:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC) *I support creating an events category, with military conflicts (and any other applicable existing cats) as subcategories.– Cleanse 23:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC) Shapeshifting Species To be based on Shapeshifting species. It is a fairly common phenomenon in Trek, with about 14 species listed on that page. – Cleanse 01:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC) Starfleet divisions I was looking at Sciences division and command division and operations division and noticed none of them had a category so what about a Category:Starfleet divisions, unless there is some other category they belong in.--UESPA 19:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC) :Perhaps they could go under Agencies? Groups? I'm neutral on this right now, I'mnot convinced yet that these three need a seperate category.--31dot 20:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC) What about as a sub category of Agencies?--UESPA 23:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC) ::Or Category:Starfleet? Question is, what do you want to put in these categories? The officers who served in these divisions? In that case Category:Starfleet personnel could be thinned by placing those individuals into smaller categories. --Alan del Beccio 23:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC) :::I'm thinking that the original idea for this category was to simply place the divisions withing their own category(please correct me if I am wrong), but I could see dividing the Starfleet personnel up by category. I'm not sure if that would be another issue, though. Responding to the above, I could see it as a subcategory of Starfleet.--31dot 23:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC) ::::With only three divisions, I don't think the divisions need their own category or even sub-category. Category:Starfleet would be a good place for it, methinks; after all, Starfleet division is already placed there. --From Andoria with Love 23:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC) Warp technology What about a Category:Warp technology considering that there is so much information dealing with warp technology and at least a couple don't have categories.--UESPA 18:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC) :Other than being more limited (an probably a subcat of), how would it be different than Category:Propulsion technology? --OuroborosCobra talk 18:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC) Because there is a lot about warp technology and if you're looking specifically for that it makes more sense to have it at least partially (making it a sub category makes sense to) seperated. Also propulsion technology is somewhat vague.--UESPA 19:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC) ::I can see the possibility of it being a sub-category of the Propulsion Tech. UESPA, create a list of articles for this category in your user space and link it from here so that people can see what you're talking about. -- Sulfur 00:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC) Now that I've taken another look at it there is so much warp technology in Category:Propulsion technology that 90% of everything in there would be in this proposed category. (I've got to learn to think before I start typing).--UESPA 05:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC) Fictional Objects We have a Category:Fictional characters, and an Category:Aliases, but nothing for objects which are made up, such as the USS Lollipop, Firomactal drive, and others. Maybe a Fictional Objects category?--31dot 21:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC) : Category:Fictional technology? --Alan 21:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC) That sounds better. --31dot 21:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC) ::Support. --From Andoria with Love 15:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC) Upon looking, the USS Voyeur probably would go in this category as well.--31dot 17:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC) Perhaps Corbomite as well.--31dot 21:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC) :::Support - Another one: USS Vortex– Cleanse 23:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC) Klingon women Pretty self-explanatory. We don't really have any articles that look at things from a feminist point of view; I think this makes MA seem very un-encyclopedic. Maybe this is a starting point? --- Jaz 01:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC) * Klingon women as a starting point for a feminist revolution on M/A? Why not Human women or for that matter, Klingon men, as a starting point for dividing up categories into sexes that could never be completed? Certainly I could see picking something that has a sizable population in a category. Otherwise, at this time, I oppose. The neutral point of view, in this case, would be the most encyclopedic. --Alan 01:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC) ** Those are all good ideas Alan . What I'm suggesting here is another step in categorization and pretty encyclopedic. Since when is "could never be completed" a deterrence in wikis? --- Jaz 01:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC) **One other point; the portrayal of women in Star Trek, specifically Klingon women has been an area of discussion not only among fans, but even in academic circles (do a Google Scholar search of "Women in Star Trek"; it yields numerous articles). --- Jaz 01:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC) * Leaning Oppose. I agree with Alan that being neutral is best. I could potentially see Female and Male categories, instead of Human females, Klingon Females, Ferengi females, etc., but splitting up each race into the sexes is too much.--31dot 22:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC) * I've got to agree with 31dot and Alan, oppose. Especially 31dot, maybe seperate them into male and female, but not into specific categories. So unless you know that the only readers are going to be female or the only readers are going to be male, it really wouldn't be encyclopedic to write it from either point of view.--UESPA 22:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC) ** You know, even in separating them into "women" and "men" you'd either have to see them to know with 100% certainty that they are a man or a woman, and even then, not knowing the specifics of each species gender assignment, you could only assume that if a male or female actor portrayed them, then they must be male or female. Too much guess work. So, even if you were to weed out the small portion of known males and females of, say humans or klingons, you still have a large list of individuals whose gender is not know that would still remain in the main category, therefore instead of having one centralized location for each individual of a species, you have to thumb through three category pages to browse one species. Unlike wikipedia, which we are not, we cannot work with the same certainty that they work with when creating and describing categories. --Alan 00:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC) ::I would like to clarify that I was not neccesarily advocating doing such a thing with male and female categories, I was only saying that I could understand such a thing. Personally, I don't feel that it is neccesary.--31dot 19:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Martial Arts As a sub-cat to Category:Sports. There's about 15 martial arts-related articles on the page of the same name.– Cleanse talk 08:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC) ::Support. Would the list article need to be eliminated afterwards?--31dot 12:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC) I was thinking of the new cat more as a supplement, as the current page has several references to martial arts in general.– Cleanse talk 12:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC) :::Just wondering. I didn't care one way or the other. :) --31dot 17:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC) Banned Items/Substances On the talk page for the Crimes category we have been discussing the idea of a category for banned items, objects, or substances. To get ideas on a potential name for this category I have started this thread. I 'll put my vote in for either Banned Materials or Banned Substances. I'm not sure if either of those covers objects as well as substances, but I can't think of anything better.--31dot 21:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC) :Support – I think maybe "Banned Materials" as it covers more, but if someone can think of a better title, that would be good.– Cleanse 23:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC) Production POV categories Forum:Page or category for Oscar & Emmy winners & nominees Hey, guys, I have a question for you. I am currently putting together a list of Star Trek people who have earned Academy Awards or who have been nominated for Academy Awards (you can find it here). Since I'm already working on this, is there any interest or need for a page or category for Oscar & Emmy Award winners and nominees who have worked on Star Trek? It could be useful. We can maybe have separate pages or categories for winners and nominees, and if we create pages, we can separate the names by the category in which they were nominated (i.e. "Best Actor", "Best Supporting Actor", "Best Visual Effects", etc.). If we create categories, we could either do something like "Category:Academy Award nominees" and "Category:Academy Award winners", or we could have a bunch of categories for each Awards category (i.e. "Category:Best Actor Oscar nominee" or "Category:Best Actor Oscar winner"). Okay, so maybe that last suggestion is a bit much, but we can discuss these and other ideas... assuming there's any interest. So, how about it? --From Andoria with Love 04:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC) :My own opinion: Before we do that, why not let's work on categories for Star Trek awards and nominations? Especially for the works, in addition to the people. What I mean is: VOY:Endgame should be in a Category, Emmy Award Winner at the very least, if not Emmy Award Winner: Outstanding Music Composition For A Series (Dramatic Underscore) AND Emmy Award Winner: Outstanding Special Visual Effects for a Series. Jay Chattaway personally of course would be in the same Music category, for example. See what I mean? 23:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC) :: I moved this forum to the category suggestion page. Might make it a little more visible on the category part of the discussion. --Alan 03:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC) :: After actually getting a chance to read this, my only interest in supporting this would be for those people who won it (or other awards) for their work in Trek, this is a Trek encyclopedia afteral, and I think we've generally gone against doing such things in other similar scenarios. --Alan 14:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC) :::This is suggestion is rather old... we already have categories for people that have won or been nominated for Emmy Awards and Oscars for work on Trek. We've had 'em for a year (or so): :::* Category:Emmy Award winners :::* Category:Emmy Award nominees :::* Category:Academy Award nominees :::Those are three that were agreed upon mid-September 2007. -- Sulfur 14:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Maintenance categories Sub-categories for Category:Memory Alpha images Locations *Category:Memory Alpha images (locations), for images of compartments aboard starships and space stations like the Image:NX Sickbay.jpg, also for images like Image:RuraPentheMine2293.jpg, which could possibly be put under Category: Memory Alpha images (planets), but not really. Deevolution 23:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC) : Okay, but in addition, what if we went with Category: Memory Alpha images (landscapes) for planet-side matte images, etc...--Alan 08:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC) ::Category: Memory Alpha images (exteriors) and Category: Memory Alpha images (interiors)? That way we can do space scenery as well? Deevolution 07:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC) :::I think that we might even be able to break this down a bit better, such as: :::* Locations :::** Building Interiors :::** Spaceship Interiors :::** Space vistas :::** Landscapes :::This seems to cover all of the things noted above. Not the perfect names, more trying to get what they might contain. "Locations" should be the "catch-all", building interiors and spaceship interiors split those up rather than just munging them all together as one. Space vistas allows for exterior shots of space, and landscapes for planet-side exterior shots. Thoughts? -- Sulfur 16:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC) : Sounds good! --Alan 03:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC) Game Cover breakdown Currently we have a game covers image category. We have sufficient amounts that I'd like to suggest breaking them down into three subcategories: * Category:Memory Alpha images (board game covers) * Category:Memory Alpha images (rpg covers) * Category:Memory Alpha images (video game covers) There are 100+ images in the category itself, and, while the board game category will be the smallest, the other two will have 30+ images in each. -- Sulfur 18:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC) : Sounds good! --Alan 03:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC) Comic Cover breakdown We currently have 400+ images in the comic covers category. This seems a little excessive to me. I would suggest breaking these down into categories by company as such: * Category:Memory Alpha images (DC comic book covers) ** Category:Memory Alpha images (DC TOS comic book covers) ** Category:Memory Alpha images (DC TNG comic book covers) ** Category:Memory Alpha images (WildStorm comic book covers) * Category:Memory Alpha images (Gold Key comic book covers) * Category:Memory Alpha images (IDW comic book covers) * Category:Memory Alpha images (Malibu comic book covers) * Category:Memory Alpha images (Marvel comic book covers) * Category:Memory Alpha images (Tokyopop comic book covers) I considered breaking them down by TOS/TNG/VOY/etc, but there are a number that do not fall into any of those categories, and a number that fall into multiple categories, and I don't know if having so many categories on each image is really all that useful. Note that DC was split into three sub-categories. WildStorm is a special imprint of DC that act(ed) as a separate company (for all intents and purposes -- but it could go into the upper level too...), and there are so many DC images that it only makes sense to split them into TOS and TNG (as those were the two lines they published). -- Sulfur 19:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC) : Support--Tim Thomason 03:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC) :: Sounds good! --Alan 03:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)